Acts against which there is no right of private defence
Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with acts against which there is no right of private defence. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.
Extent to which the right may be exercised.
Extent to which the right may be exercised.--The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
Explanation 1.-A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.
Explanation 2.-A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.
Section 99, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 37 Acts against which there is no right of private defence Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-5.pdf 2010-01-15 (not same-date order-6 ROP). Bhandari/Ganguly, Crl A 1057/2002. Restores trial-court acquittal on private defence: ss.96–100 IPC. The right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt arises; the defender is not expected to modulate the defence step by step; burden is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. A licensed-gun response to a gandasa attack in a family land dispute was held justified. Map the core body-defence cluster 96/97/99/100 (not every 96–106 number).
On this section: s.99: there is no right against an act which does not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt; conversely, once that apprehension exists the right is not lost by a failure to modulate force.
-
Ram Pat vs State of Harayana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A purchaser of an undivided share in joint family property does not acquire any right to possession of the land; his only right is to sue for partition. Therefore, the accused persons, being purchasers of undivided shares, could not claim to be in 'settled possession' of the disputed agricultural land. The four essential attributes of settled possession as established in Puran Singh (actual physical possession over sufficiently long period, possession to knowledge of owner with animus possidendi, complete and final dispossession acquiesced in by owner, and for culturable land, growing of crop) must be read conjunctively. Since the accused did not satisfy these attributes and were wholly armed aggressors while the deceased party was not armed (except with a non-dangerous Kamari), they had no right of private defence and were therefore guilty of murder.
On this section: Discussed regarding limitations on right of private defence, including availability only when there is insufficient time to seek recourse to public authorities and when harm caused is not more than necessary.
-
Hanumantappa Bhimappa Dalavai vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence cannot be claimed by a person who deliberately retrieves a weapon from his premises and then assaults the visitors; such conduct bears the stamp of design to kill and falls outside the purview of private defence as defined in Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code. The absence of injury on the accused persons, combined with credible eye-witness testimony of the victims, the deliberate fetching of a weapon, and the coordinated nature of the assault, establishes that the appellants were aggressors, not defenders, and the burden on the accused to establish self-defence by preponderance of probabilities was not discharged. Consequently, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC is upheld.
On this section: Lays down the limits of the right of private defence; controls the rights given under Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106.
-
State of U. P vs Gajey Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When injuries sustained by the accused persons during an alleged criminal incident are not explained by the prosecution witnesses, and those injuries are serious and substantial rather than superficial or minor, the non-explanation constitutes a significant circumstance that renders the prosecution version doubtful and may justify a finding that the accused legitimately exercised the right of private defence. The accused need only show that their defence plea was probable and that there was reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt based on the nature and manner of assault, the weapons involved, and the surrounding circumstances. The burden does not rest on the accused to prove their defence case to the hilt, but rather on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without suppressing the true genesis and origin of the occurrence.
On this section: Prescribes limitations on the right of private defence, including that there is no right of private defence if there is time to have recourse to public authorities
-
Ravishwar Manjhi vs State of Jharkhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When injuries are found on the person of the accused in a case where a plea of private defense is raised, the prosecution must explain these injuries. If the prosecution fails to adequately explain the injuries on the accused and the circumstances suggest a probable case of self-defense, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The right of private defense need not be specifically pleaded; courts may act upon such conclusion based on materials placed on record by the prosecution itself. In cases involving armed conflict where both parties sustained injuries, the court must examine whether the accused were aggressors or acted in self-defense, considering the genesis of the occurrence and the nature of injuries. Procedural defects in investigation, including failure to produce crucial evidence like station diary and non-examination of Investigating Officer, combined with temporal inconsistencies and delayed witness statements, can vitiate the prosecution case and entitle the accused to acquittal.
On this section: Lays down the limits of right of private defense - cannot inflict more harm than necessary
-
Ravishwar Manjhi vs State of Jharkhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When in a criminal case involving violent confrontation both parties are armed with deadly weapons and sustain injuries, uniform murder convictions under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained against all accused. If material on record creates reasonable probability that accused exercised right of private defence against apprehended death or grievous hurt, the accused is entitled to acquittal even without express plea, provided the right was not exercised after danger ceased. The prosecution must prove initial aggression and must explain injuries on accused persons when self-defence is a probable scenario. Courts must evaluate all circumstances pragmatically without hyper-technical approach and cannot reject defence merely because accused failed to prove it, but must assess whether it was probable given the materials on record.
On this section: Limits right of private defence - cannot inflict more harm than necessary for defence
-
Raghbir Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence is a defensive right available only when circumstances clearly justify it and cannot be used as pretext for vindictive or aggressive purposes. While a person facing reasonable apprehension of threat cannot be expected to modulate defence step-by-step with arithmetical exactitude in the heat of moment, and situations must be pragmatically viewed without hyper-technical scrutiny, an accused must establish on preponderance of probabilities that the assault was necessity for warding off attack or forestalling reasonable apprehension. When an accused fails to fully establish self-defence plea but the facts show assault occurred in course of sudden quarrel without premeditation using non-lethal weapons, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies, reducing offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC), with custodial sentence appropriately reflecting the seriousness of causing death by dangerous act.
On this section: Lays down limits of right of private defence; controls the right given under Sections 96-98 and 100-106.
-
Dinesh Singh vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused claims the right of private defence, he must establish on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that there existed reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt at the time of the alleged defensive action. The right of private defence is a legitimate right available only when circumstances clearly justify it, requiring careful examination of the entire incident in its proper setting. Where no person on the prosecution side is shown to be armed with any weapon, there cannot be any reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and therefore the right cannot extend to causing death. The burden rests on the accused to establish this right, and absent such establishment, an act causing death constitutes culpable homicide.
On this section: Lays down limits of the right of private defence; controls extent of right
-
Arjun vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act of violence resulting in death is committed in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, without any undue advantage taken, and in the course of a mutual fight where both parties sustained injuries, the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) should be altered to Section 304 Part 1 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), even though the accused was armed with a lethal weapon and the victim was unarmed, provided the overall circumstances do not show deliberate calculation or predetermined violence.
On this section: Limits of right of private defense - injury must be commensurate with threatened injury; reasonable apprehension of receiving injury is necessary
-
Sadhu Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused claims the right of private defence in a criminal matter, the burden is on the accused to establish, through careful examination of the entire incident in its proper setting, that circumstances gave rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The right of private defence commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit an offence and continues so long as the reasonable apprehension of danger persists. Once the cause for reasonable apprehension disappears and the threat has been destroyed or put to rout, there is no further occasion to exercise the right of private defence. If the evidence shows that an accused exceeded the right of private defence, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 IPC (murder), with the sentence determined to meet the ends of justice.
On this section: Limits of right of private defence - controls the right given under Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106, establishing boundaries
-
Santokh Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A right of private defence extending to causing death cannot be claimed merely because a quarrel occurred and some injuries were sustained by the accused. To establish such a right, it must be shown that the accused was under grave apprehension about the safety of their life and property, and that retaliation to the extent undertaken was absolutely necessary. However, when a homicide occurs in the course of a sudden fight with mutual provocation and without premeditation or undue advantage, it falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and constitutes culpable homicide, not murder. The number of injuries sustained by the accused is not a safe or determinative criterion for establishing private defence.
On this section: Limits of right of private defence - controls the exercise of right
-
Ranveer Singh vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence under Indian criminal law is a valuable defensive right serving a social purpose, available when there is reasonable apprehension of danger to body arising from attempt or threat to commit an offence. The right extends to causing death if there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would result from assault. However, the right is strictly limited: it commences upon reasonable apprehension of imminent danger and continues only so long as that apprehension reasonably exists. Once the threat is eliminated or the cause for apprehension disappears, the right ceases. The burden of establishing private defence rests on the accused by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Where the accused exceeds the bounds of private defence and uses force beyond what was necessary or reasonable under the circumstances, the plea cannot protect him from criminal liability, and the conviction may be properly reduced from murder to culpable homicide or a lesser offence accordingly. The assessment must be pragmatic, considering the subjective circumstances as they appeared to the accused in the moment of excitement and confusion, but not permitting the guise of self-preservation to become a pretext for assault or vindictive action.
On this section: Lays down limits of right of private defence. The right given under Sections 96-98 and 100-106 is controlled by this section.
-
Shivanna vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence is a defensive right that cannot be invoked by the aggressor or after the reasonable apprehension of danger has ceased. The burden of establishing this right is on the accused, who must show preponderance of probabilities. The mere fact that injuries were sustained by the accused does not establish self-defence if the evidence clearly shows they were the aggressors. The number of injuries and non-explanation thereof by the prosecution are relevant but not conclusive factors. When prosecutorial evidence is clear, cogent, independent and credible, it can outweigh the unexplained injuries. The right must be examined pragmatically in its proper setting, considering the imminence of threat, the injuries sustained, and whether the accused had time to resort to public authorities, but it cannot be used as a pretext for vindictive or retributive assault.
On this section: Lays down the limits of right of private defence; applied to control and restrict the right to legitimate circumstances only
-
Mohan Lal vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is faced with criminal trespass on his property and reacts to protect his property and person, he has the right of private defence available to him. However, this right is circumscribed by law and cannot extend to causing death or grievous hurt unless there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence. If the person uses excessive force and causes death when the aggressor is not armed with a deadly weapon and there is no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, the act falls under Exception II of Section 300 IPC and is punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and not under Section 302 IPC (murder). The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death, and the court must examine all surrounding circumstances and view the entire incident in its proper setting to determine whether the right of private defence was exceeded.
On this section: Delineates the extent to which the right of private defence may be exercised. The court examined whether the appellants exceeded the 'lakshman rekha' (boundary) applicable to the exercise of this right.
-
Shriram vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused persons does not automatically warrant rejection of the prosecution case. Such non-explanation assumes significance only when the defence version competes in probability with the prosecution version or when the evidence consists of interested witnesses. However, where the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent, credible, independent, disinterested, probable and consistent, and where the injuries on the accused are minor and superficial, the mere failure of the prosecution to explain such injuries cannot be the sole basis for rejection of the case. The test of credibility of eyewitnesses who are related to the deceased is not whether they are interested, but whether upon careful and deeper scrutiny of their evidence, it is found to be acceptable and trustworthy.
On this section: Lays down the limits of the right of private defence; controls the exercise of the right under Sections 96-98 and 100-106
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It is entirely a question of fact in the circumstances of a case as to whether there has been excess of private defence within the meaning of the 4th clause of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, that no more harm is inflicted than is necessary for the purpose of defence. No one can be expected to find any pattern of conduct to meet a particular case. Circumstances must show that the court can find that there was apprehension to life or property or of grievous hurt. If it is …
-
… to take recourse to the protection of public authorities? In having returned to the scene with M.O.1 and in not having run to the police or other public authorities to complain against the illegal action of the deceased, we are of opinion that the appellant has not lost his ..34.. right of private defence. Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code stipulates: > "There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities". That the appellant's movable property was facing threat of illegal removal from his possession and/or unjustified damage is established. …
Questions about Section 99
What have the courts held on Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code?
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (15 Jan 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.99: there is no right against an act which does not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt; conversely, once that apprehension exists the right is not lost by a failure to modulate force. Another 14 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2012.
How do I find court cases under Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 99, section 99 IPC, section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 15 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (15 Jan 2010).
What should I read with Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 37 (Acts against which there is no right of private defence), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 99, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.